DOJ-OGR-00005549.jpg
1.01 MB
Extraction Summary
7
People
5
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
4
Relationships
0
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
1.01 MB
Summary
This legal document details the recollections of an individual identified as "AK" regarding meetings about the Epstein case after February 29, 2016. AK describes meeting with attorneys who provided information on Epstein's conduct beyond Virginia Roberts, and a subsequent meeting with Dan Stein, Chief of the Criminal Division, where they decided on an action plan. This plan involved AK contacting Sean Watson of the FBI to have him inquire with Miami agents about their dissatisfaction with the resolution of the original Florida case.
People (7)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| AK |
The central figure in this document, whose recollections of meetings and decisions regarding the Epstein case are bei...
|
|
| Epstein |
The subject of the investigation and discussions mentioned in the document.
|
|
| Virginia Roberts |
Mentioned as a victim of Epstein, whose experience was part of a broader discussion about his conduct.
|
|
| Dan Stein | Chief of Criminal Division |
Emailed by AK after the February 29, 2016 meeting to discuss the Epstein case and decide on an action plan.
|
| Stan | lawyer |
Mentioned as one of the lawyers who reported that FBI agents in Florida were unhappy with the resolution of the Epste...
|
| Brad | lawyer |
Mentioned as one of the lawyers who reported that FBI agents in Florida were unhappy with the resolution of the Epste...
|
| Sean Watson | head of FBI C-20 |
Contacted by AK after her meeting with Dan Stein and asked to reach out to Miami FBI agents regarding the Epstein case.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SDNY | government agency |
Southern District of New York, the office whose potential investigation into Epstein was being discussed.
|
| USAO | government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office, mentioned in the context of civil litigants reporting information and in collaboration with t...
|
| USAO SDFL | government agency |
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, described as a reputable office that handled the previou...
|
| FBI | government agency |
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mentioned in relation to agents in Florida who were reportedly unhappy with the Epst...
|
| FBI C-20 | government agency |
A specific unit of the FBI, headed by Sean Watson at the time.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned as the location of an individual who had helped Epstein and was a potential source of evidence.
|
|
|
Location of the original Epstein case where FBI agents were reportedly unhappy with the outcome.
|
|
|
Location of the FBI agents who worked on the Epstein case and whom Sean Watson was asked to contact.
|
Relationships (4)
AK emailed and met with Dan Stein, the Chief of Criminal Division, to discuss a case and formulate an action plan.
AK called Sean Watson, head of FBI C-20, to ask him to take action on a case by contacting other agents.
AK met with lawyers, including one named Stan or Brad, to receive information about the Epstein case.
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,267 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 382-7 Filed 10/29/21 Page 4 of 7
● AK’s recollection is that the attorneys did not make any suggestions regarding what
investigative steps SDNY should take. The attorneys did not suggest that SDNY use
civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation.
● Discussion of Epstein’s conduct expanded beyond Virginia Roberts. Attorneys described
the conduct as involving many or several other girls. There was more detail provided
about Virginia Roberts’s experience, but there was a broader discussion about Epstein’s
conduct as a pattern and long-running, if not ongoing, behavior that continued after
Virginia was no longer involved.
● AK’s understanding was not that the attorneys were hoping SDNY would investigate or
charge anyone other than Epstein. The meeting was focused on Epstein. There was
mention of other people who had helped him over time, including an individual who was
in Europe and potentially was a source of evidence against Epstein. The thrust of the
discussion was about building a case against Epstein. The other individuals were
mentioned or described as part of telling the story, or as potential sources of information.
● AK does not remember exactly what she said at the end of the meeting, but she knows
her practice was that in every such meeting she has ever had, she has thanked the people
for coming in and been completely non-committal and non-responsive about what the
office would do about the information that was provided.
o AK absolutely did not tell the attorneys that an investigation would be opened.
investigative steps SDNY should take. The attorneys did not suggest that SDNY use
civil lawsuits as a means to conduct a criminal investigation.
● Discussion of Epstein’s conduct expanded beyond Virginia Roberts. Attorneys described
the conduct as involving many or several other girls. There was more detail provided
about Virginia Roberts’s experience, but there was a broader discussion about Epstein’s
conduct as a pattern and long-running, if not ongoing, behavior that continued after
Virginia was no longer involved.
● AK’s understanding was not that the attorneys were hoping SDNY would investigate or
charge anyone other than Epstein. The meeting was focused on Epstein. There was
mention of other people who had helped him over time, including an individual who was
in Europe and potentially was a source of evidence against Epstein. The thrust of the
discussion was about building a case against Epstein. The other individuals were
mentioned or described as part of telling the story, or as potential sources of information.
● AK does not remember exactly what she said at the end of the meeting, but she knows
her practice was that in every such meeting she has ever had, she has thanked the people
for coming in and been completely non-committal and non-responsive about what the
office would do about the information that was provided.
o AK absolutely did not tell the attorneys that an investigation would be opened.
Events after February 29, 2016 meeting:
● After the February 29, 2016 meeting, AK emailed Dan Stein (Chief of Criminal Division
at the time). Had a meeting in his office. AK discussed with Stein what the lawyers had
shared, AK’s thoughts, and Stein’s thoughts. Decided on an action plan.
o AK knew there was the pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation, which
gave AK some pause because she had other occasions where civil litigants have
decided to report something to the USAO because they think it will help them in
their civil case. AK mentioned that to Stein.
o Discussed the length of time that had passed; wasn’t clear there was any ongoing
conduct; USAO SDFL is a reputable USAO with skilled FBI agents, and AK’s
assumption was that however they concluded their case probably reflected
something about the strength of the case or some issue that existed.
o One thing that leaned in favor of taking action was that one of the lawyers (Stan
or Brad) said that FBI agents in Florida case were not happy with the result and
how the case was resolved. That concerned AK because experienced FBI agents
in this area usually, in AK’s experience, make collaborative decisions with the
USAO.
o AK & Stein decided (don’t recall who came up with idea) that AK would reach
out to Sean Watson (head of FBI C-20 at the time) and ask him to contact Miami
FBI agents to ask if they in fact were unhappy with the outcome and felt like
justice had not been served.
● After the meeting with Stein, AK called Sean Watson and relayed the summary of this
and asked him to reach out to the Miami agents who were on the Epstein case. AK asked
● After the February 29, 2016 meeting, AK emailed Dan Stein (Chief of Criminal Division
at the time). Had a meeting in his office. AK discussed with Stein what the lawyers had
shared, AK’s thoughts, and Stein’s thoughts. Decided on an action plan.
o AK knew there was the pending CVRA civil case and other civil litigation, which
gave AK some pause because she had other occasions where civil litigants have
decided to report something to the USAO because they think it will help them in
their civil case. AK mentioned that to Stein.
o Discussed the length of time that had passed; wasn’t clear there was any ongoing
conduct; USAO SDFL is a reputable USAO with skilled FBI agents, and AK’s
assumption was that however they concluded their case probably reflected
something about the strength of the case or some issue that existed.
o One thing that leaned in favor of taking action was that one of the lawyers (Stan
or Brad) said that FBI agents in Florida case were not happy with the result and
how the case was resolved. That concerned AK because experienced FBI agents
in this area usually, in AK’s experience, make collaborative decisions with the
USAO.
o AK & Stein decided (don’t recall who came up with idea) that AK would reach
out to Sean Watson (head of FBI C-20 at the time) and ask him to contact Miami
FBI agents to ask if they in fact were unhappy with the outcome and felt like
justice had not been served.
● After the meeting with Stein, AK called Sean Watson and relayed the summary of this
and asked him to reach out to the Miami agents who were on the Epstein case. AK asked
3
SDNY_GM_02742889
DOJ-OGR-00005549
DOJ-OGR-00005549
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document